As has already been stated, extremists like Akin lost; but what’s noteworthy as it pertains to the GOP’s future is that Akin not only lost, but he lost in places likeSpringfield, which is our version of the Bible Belt. In other words, a far right candidate lost a far right bastion.

Also, tuning in to the right-wing talk radio show I normally listen to in the mornings on the way to work gave me another glimmer of hope for the future. A caller came on with some conspiracy theory about how the e-votes were transmitted to Spain to be counted by a company owned by George Soros, and the radio commentator went utterly ape**** on him. “This is what we’re talking about?!? Really?!? Really?!?”

The commentator then went on a rant about how it was far-right crazies that blew it for Republicans. I wasn’t able to hear the rest of the program, but I hope that more conversations like that are taking place across the nation.

That the gist of the post-election analysis early this morning, that the demographics are going in one direction and the the Republicans are going in the opposite direction and that they run the risk of looking irrelevant.

Irrelevant? The GOP has cemented a hold on the House that could last for a decade. They are not going to have a problem gerrymandering their way to a continued stranglehold on House races. In the best possible world their position in the Senate may slowly erode, but that's not guaranteed. What has Obama's winning coalition brought to the table in the way of viable governance at the Federal level?

Jabba, they're already losing seats in the house. Obama can hold them over the fire on the Bush tax cuts now. Either they're going to continue to lose seats, or they're going to have become a more reasonable party to stay viable, either of which is a win for sanity.

Yeah, I guess I don't see things as you do, other Jabba. Yes, the Republican House is secure. But that will only hold for two more Presidential cycles, which must be slim comfort to them. Especially if they continue to take losses in the Senate and Presidency. They are not irrelevant in that they have no current role in governance. They are irrelevant in the sense that they have no clear way to keep one.

Yay! It sounds like we do agree. The GOP is irrelevant not in the sense that they are irrelevant now or up to 8 years from now, but in that they may well be irrelevant 12 years from now if their position in the Senate erodes and demographic shifts overwhelm their tactics for holding onto House seats.

Also, they may maneuver themselves toward premature irrelevance if they stonewall on the fiscal cliff.

Yeah, I guess I don't see things as you do, other Jabba. Yes, the Republican House is secure. But that will only hold for two more Presidential cycles, which must be slim comfort to them. Especially if they continue to take losses in the Senate and Presidency. They are not irrelevant in that they have no current role in governance. They are irrelevant in the sense that they have no clear way to keep one.

I'm not so sure.

Remember, in 2004, the Democrats suffered a devastating defeat, and yet they still were able to come back two years later and take over Congress. After another two years, they took back the White House as well.

For all the predictions of upcoming irrelevancy for the Republicans, Romney still got 48.1% of the vote. Obama only got 50.3%, which is only barely a majority. And all of that was after a campaign that was focused more on tearing down his opponent than projecting a plan for the future. An irrelevant party doesn't get 48.1% of the vote, and an enduring majority doesn't come out of a 50.3% majority. Both parties still have a long road ahead of them.

Already, if you look at conservative publications, you can see analysis of how the Republicans need to change. For example, severalwriters at National Review are talking about how Republicans need to change their position on immigration, or at least how they communicate it. You can see similar commentary at other conservative sites.

That's what John King was saying CNN early this morning. If the Republicans don't moderate some of their positions, taxes, immigration, gay rights etc then they will run the risk of being permanently marginalized in the long term.

The GOP could become relevant again on issues like immigration and their bat**** crazy attitude about tax increases.

I would be shocked if they did.

My long term prediction: GOP joins the Whigs in a generation's time. Tea party people splinter off into smaller ineffective third-parties.

Short term: The electoral college continues to favor democrats.

Take a look at that electoral map and tell me how a GOPer wins the WH. Obama has now taken Viriginia away from the GOP two elections in a row.

The GOP will become a regional party by 2030.

What makes this even worse is North Carolina and Georgia are quickly going they way Virginia has. For example in this year election, Georgia's white vote fell below 60%, while non-white vote was at an all-time high. People talk about Texas being a swing state by the end of the decade, but Georgia and North Carolina are the next dominos to fall.

For every pundit who rants and rails that Romney lost because he wasn’t “conservative enough,” please recall that you had the Super Conservative All-Star Lineup™ all throughout the Republican primaries.

What makes this even worse is North Carolina and Georgia are quickly going they way Virginia has. For example in this year election, Georgia's white vote fell below 60%, while non-white vote was at an all-time high. People talk about Texas being a swing state by the end of the decade, but Georgia and North Carolina are the next dominos to fall.

And Georgia has a LOT of EV.

Take away Georgia and North Carolina, and Texas is really the only state with big EV that they have left. Literally. Take away Texas... they're done for the Presidency.

*History Lesson.... this is the first time since Jefferson-Madison-Monroe that we've had 3 multi-term presidents in a row.

Already, if you look at conservative publications, you can see analysis of how the Republicans need to change. For example, severalwriters at National Review are talking about how Republicans need to change their position on immigration, or at least how they communicate it. You can see similar commentary at other conservative sites.

Why does this give you confidence? Anyone who made even a cursory inspection of last night's exit polls could have drawn the same conclusion. As much was obvious long before the election, stretching back to at least 2006. Yet, in spite of the clear and repeated danger signals, the Party's handling of these issues did not improve. It worsened. Jan Brewer received among the warmest reception of any attendee of the 2012 RNC, and that for her role driving a highly divisive immigration measure that many perceived as encouraging racial profiling. The Republican base has real, organic enthusiasm for a number of their most toxic positions. How on Earth do you unwind that, especially in short order? How do you go from praising Rush Limbaugh as an insightful voice and opinion leader to someone who should be marginalized? How do you walk back so much stridently racially-tinged rhetoric when you've spent the last half decade nourishing it?

This is not a small bore issue of particular candidates and messaging. The entire conservative apparatus needs to be re-worked. If new policy positions are to be taken, they will strain to fit inside an ideological framework that highlighted the previous set of policies as singularly logical and desirable. Explain to us how the GOP will be prepared to make all the changes that are so evidently needed, especially without alienating the base they already have. That's why they're irrelevant.

EDIT: In addition to which, KK, the Democratic loss in 2005 was not "devastating." It was an incredibly narrow-fought thing, down to a few swing counties of a single state. There were no deeply unfavorable demographics, and no obvious structural problems. Just a campaign against a relatively unpopular candidate that fell short. While both emotionally disappointing for challengers, the very comparison seems only to suggest a lack of acknowledgement of the Republicans' current problem.

Well, like always, it's going to be dependent on the specifics surrounding each race, and/or the candidate fielded. The democratic party doesn't really have anyone in the wings that rivals Obama, and the next election isn't going to have an incumbent advantage, as both candidates will have a clean slate. Imagine if Obama didn't exist, and Biden was the incumbent President? I'm not so sure Biden would have been able to beat McCain, but even if he did, a Biden vs Romney race would be very much a Kang vs Kodos election.

As it's been pointed out, I think the House will stay in GOP hands for a while, and even during this election, the GOP picked up Governorships and Representatives. This matches up with the core ideals of each party. What seems to have happened is that the GOP solidified itself at the state level, while the democrats solidified the federal level. This makes for an interesting dynamic. Of course, I'm speaking in broad terms.

The Senate is in more of a flux. This election, the Senate was most definitely a reaction against specific candidates, not parties. Both Akin and Mourdock were winning their Congressional races until both sabotaged themselves. Had they not done so, the Congress would have sat at at least 50 vs 47. Don't get me wrong, both deserved to loose their respective races because of their dipstick behavior, but the results don't point to an overall trend in their cases. I bet the next available election, there is going to be a slight re-alignment of the Senate so its more evenly split.

Don't you think there's a potentially fundamental problem though for the GOP and the Senate, that dipstick behavior is closely tied to core beliefs, and these core beliefs end up being singled out for reward by the GOP primary process? There's not much out there to train representatives in ironclad districts to be careful about what they say. Their core beliefs are cheered on by their core constituents, the cheering on gets magnified throughout the GOP primary. At the end of the day, the dipstick behavior can't be explained away as a momentary slipup: it is practically mandated by the primary process and hard to excise from the record in a general election. Legitimate rape! Self-deportation! Shut down FEMA!

Don't you think there's a potentially fundamental problem though for the GOP and the Senate, that dipstick behavior is closely tied to core beliefs, and these core beliefs end up being singled out for reward by the GOP primary process? There's not much out there to train representatives in ironclad districts to be careful about what they say. Their core beliefs are cheered on by their core constituents, the cheering on gets magnified throughout the GOP primary. At the end of the day, the dipstick behavior can't be explained away as a momentary slipup: it is practically mandated by the primary process and hard to excise from the record in a general election.

Absolutely. Except I'd say the consequence of not being careful about what one says is that the person doesn't get elected, which kind of defeats the purpose. If no other lesson is learned, then I hope that there will never be another candidate who uses rape as a campaign tool. It should be common sense, but politics and common sense rarely go hand in hand.

There does seem to be something about Republicans putting their feet in their mouths during a campaign, and that was even commented on after the Mourdock and Akin comments on CNN.

Well, I would disagree with this idea, as it applies to both. Bill Clinton was an acting President when he engaged in certain extracurricular activities with a cigar. Was that action any more intelligent than Mourdock's comments? His actions were certainly more misogynistic. Clinton's lack of judgement has certainly be exorcised though. Would the consequences been the same had he been caught during his initial campaign? Paula Jones, and the $850,000 Clinton paid her, would probably have a reply here. I mention Clinton only because he held the pinnacle elected position, and how is his image now?

I don't have to supply a laundry list of politicians from either party to prove a point, except to illustrate a potential question related to perception.

It's hard to call openly and honestly reflecting the beliefs and attitudes of your core constituents "putting your foot in your mouth." The core GOP problem as 44 expressed it is that believing that raped women don't get pregnant is all well an good for getting elected to certain congressional districts, but it can pose an obstacle to winning a seat in the Senate, let alone winning the White House. Romney lost in part because he was forced by the GOP primary process into recitations of loser policy positions. Jabba-wocky's point is a good one: how does the GOP fix this problem merely by "wanting to reach out" to women and Hispanic/Latino voters. I'd like to date Mila Kunis. But I'm too old, ugly and poor. And I'm married.

It's hard to call openly and honestly reflecting the beliefs and attitudes of your core constituents "putting your foot in your mouth." The core GOP problem as 44 expressed it is that believing that raped women don't get pregnant is all well an good for getting elected to certain congressional districts, but it can pose an obstacle to winning a seat in the Senate, let alone winning the White House. Romney lost in part because he was forced by the GOP primary process into recitations of loser policy positions. Jabba-wocky's point is a good one: how does the GOP fix this problem merely by "wanting to reach out" to women and Hispanic/Latino voters. I'd like to date Mila Kunis. But I'm too old, ugly and poor. And I'm married.

Again though, I would disagree. My point is that not every core belief has to be voiced. Again, let me use Clinton here as an example. Despite it not really being acknowledged, Clinton was the President who signed the DOMA into law. Where did his action come from, and I mean in the sense of his core beliefs? Do you honestly think that believing a raped woman does not get pregnant is a core republican belief? It's not, it's an extreme one. It's Akin's personal view of the whole abortion issue, which is the context in which he made his statement. Would Akin's views have been evident had he simply said "I'm pro-life," and left it at that? They sure would have. Is Dennis Kucinich's view to abolish the US military and replace it with an official "department of peace" a mainstream democratic party view? No, it's an extreme view which is Kucinich's personal outgrowth of the traditional left wing anti-military viewpoint. Could Kucinich simply say "I want to reduce the military" and let that stand? Kucinich's extreme anti-war views don't necessarily clash with the overall anti-war movement. But it's also why, despite trying multiple times, Kucinich will never make it through a Presidential primary.

This entire concept can be illustrated by none other than the famous "Howard Dean scream." In hindsight, was Dean's scream all that major? Of course it wasn't. But it deviated from the norm, and doomed his campaign.

My point is that savy politicians win elections, those who actually voice their extreme opinions don't because it removes all doubt from what the basic issue may be. (to paraphrase Mark Twain) Akin would have won his election had he not voiced this single aspect. Any lesson learned would be to simply keep your mouth shut until you win whatever you are running for, then the public is more forgiving.